Elizabeth Warren Ancestry Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
JoeMorgue said:
That's why I've always loved the "I'll donate this to charity!" argument when there's not details or further info.

You can start your own charity for 99 bucks on LegalZoom.
Click to expand...

If only I could figure out a way to get people to give me 99 bucks ...
 
The Big Dog said:
while our correspondents are focusing on other posters (because of course), I will endeavor to continue to bring forth third party sources containing authoritative analysis:



37 people....
Click to expand...

Well, keep trying.

I don't know exactly how geneticists do their work, so I can't tell you exactly why that database was used by Bustamante, or whether there is any connection to any other source. What I know is that he is the most authoritative source I've heard on this subject, and he says she probably has a Native American ancestor, 8 generations back, plus or minus a couple of generations.

He can't distinguish between a Cherokee and an Inca, but since she lived in Oklahoma, I'm thinking something from the United States is a more likely source. Maybe, I don't know, Cherokee? Really, it could be lots of things, because 8 generations back would be before her ancestors moved to Oklahoma, and maybe even before Andy Jackson kicked the Cherokee out to Oklahoma. (As an aside, is Jackson still getting booted off the 20 dollar bill, or did Trump belay that order?)

Seriously, I haven't heard actual geneticists question the core finding, which is that a Native American ancestor is likely. Note that in the video they released I didn't hear him say the word "prove", so my guess is there's still some room for doubt.

Most importantly, for this line of discussion, is that there is nothing wrong with the science used by Bustamante, or with ancestry DNA testing in general. It's perfectly good science. You just have to be careful with the interpretation. There are limits to what it can tell you.


Elizabeth Warren’s DNA Is Not Her Identity

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/what-make-elizabeth-warrens-dna-test/573205/
Click to expand...

Well, duh. But that has nothing to do with the DNA science.
 
theprestige said:
DNA Test: Warren maybe related to a few Central And South Americans.

Still no word on whether Warren has Cherokee ancestors.
Click to expand...

Suppose a baby got dumped on the steps of a hospital next to a Cherokee reservation, that baby could not be tested for DNA to decide if it should be placed with a native or white family? But just testing it for DNA would immediately make it not Cherokee!
 
theprestige said:
DNA Test: Warren maybe related to a few Central And South Americans.

Still no word on whether Warren has Cherokee ancestors.
Click to expand...

Not how it works. North, Central, and South Native Americans are all more closely related to one another than to Europeans, or other out groups. Therefore Warren's positive DNA match to any one or more of these groups represents a match to all. The details of the match may further permit a more narrow identification of the geographical origin. In fact details of Warren's match are most consistent with a North American ancestry, but that is probably pushing the analysis a bit.


Still no word on whether Warren has Cherokee ancestors? As repeatedly noted up thread, don't hold your breath. No DNA test yet available has the resolution to prove or disprove such a connection.

But I suspect you know all this.
 
Dr. Keith said:
I'd be more worried about the privacy implications before taking such a test. Remember the rule of the internet: if you aren't paying, you are not the customer, you are the product. It applies here. The cheapness is subsidized by monetizing your data.
Click to expand...

I hadn't heard that rule, but it's a good rule.

I'm a little bit nervous about putting my DNA out there, but I'm trying to imagine what's the worst that could happen? I'm fairly confident that my DNA isn't sitting in a rape kit anywhere, even though I did get blackout drunk a few times in the early 1980s, so I am told anything is possible.

Right now, I'm leaning strongly toward going through with it. I actually already paid for it. I'm going through ancestry, and they had a sale where there was a low cost for the test, plus a 6 month membership. I already used the data in their database to find a couple of branches on the family tree. Not sure I like the fact that I identified them on their site, which means now they also have a record of who my cousins are but......I guess I'm taking some chances here.
 
theprestige said:
DNA Test: Warren maybe related to a few Central And South Americans.

Still no word on whether Warren has Cherokee ancestors.
Click to expand...
Yes. So?

The test is consistent with her claims. We'r can expect little more than that, given the spotty records of the day.
 
Meadmaker said:
Well, keep trying.

I don't know exactly how geneticists do their work, so I can't tell you exactly why that database was used by Bustamante, or whether there is any connection to any other source. What I know is that he is the most authoritative source I've heard on this subject, and he says she probably has a Native American ancestor, 8 generations back, plus or minus a couple of generations.

He can't distinguish between a Cherokee and an Inca, but since she lived in Oklahoma, I'm thinking something from the United States is a more likely source. Maybe, I don't know, Cherokee? Really, it could be lots of things, because 8 generations back would be before her ancestors moved to Oklahoma, and maybe even before Andy Jackson kicked the Cherokee out to Oklahoma. (As an aside, is Jackson still getting booted off the 20 dollar bill, or did Trump belay that order?)

Seriously, I haven't heard actual geneticists question the core finding, which is that a Native American ancestor is likely. Note that in the video they released I didn't hear him say the word "prove", so my guess is there's still some room for doubt.

Most importantly, for this line of discussion, is that there is nothing wrong with the science used by Bustamante, or with ancestry DNA testing in general. It's perfectly good science. You just have to be careful with the interpretation. There are limits to what it can tell you.

Well, duh. But that has nothing to do with the DNA science.
Click to expand...

^Exactly

You might find this link informative:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ren-dna-test-is-wrong/?utm_term=.e5b684b7dab8

It discusses some of the complexities of the analysis and what it actually says and doesn't say. Given all the political attempts to spin the DNA results, the one portion of this link that I thought was a particularly helpful way of thinking about it was:

"Warren had 10 times more Native American ancestry than the reference set from Utah, and 12 times more than the set from Britain. The report also said that the long segment on Chromosome 10 indicated that the DNA came from a relatively recent ancestor."

"There could be one individual in the sixth generation — living around the mid-1800s, which is similar to Warren family lore — or possibly a dozen or more ancestors back to the 10th generation, which would be about 250 years ago. Her results are consistent with a single ancestor, however."
 
Meadmaker said:
I hadn't heard that rule, but it's a good rule.

I'm a little bit nervous about putting my DNA out there, but I'm trying to imagine what's the worst that could happen? I'm fairly confident that my DNA isn't sitting in a rape kit anywhere, even though I did get blackout drunk a few times in the early 1980s, so I am told anything is possible.

Right now, I'm leaning strongly toward going through with it. I actually already paid for it. I'm going through ancestry, and they had a sale where there was a low cost for the test, plus a 6 month membership. I already used the data in their database to find a couple of branches on the family tree. Not sure I like the fact that I identified them on their site, which means now they also have a record of who my cousins are but......I guess I'm taking some chances here.
Click to expand...

The scary part it that you do not have to put your own DNA out there, a near relative choosing to put their DNA out there will reveal a lot about your own DNA. You probably know that criminals have been tracked down from public databases of their relatives' DNA. We are living in complicated times.
 
Vixen said:
A million bucks? Let's pro-rate this:

https://twitter.com/BrianScheider/status/1053025407904169985
Click to expand...

How predictable. Is that the best you can do?

Now that you've responded with a such a persuasive argument, how about presenting the evidence that

1) "Today's DNA testing can pinpoint exactly which 'tribe' you are from",
2) DNA "can distinguish one Native American tribe from another",
3) "Warren also lied about her parents having to elope",
4) "They had a big traditional church wedding",
5) Harvard "fulfilled its quota of ethnics"*.

*Harvard disclosing the ethnicity of its freshmen does not prove there was a "quota" to fulfill.

And please, don't try to divert from the fact that you can't provide evidence of any of the above by resorting to accusing me of supporting a murderer. If you want to discuss that, I suggest you post in the appropriate thread.

ETA:
If Warren is 1/64 Native American ( as family lore and the DNA says is more likely) then Trump owes Warren at least $15, 610 to her chosen charity.

"Warren had 10 times more Native American ancestry than the reference set from Utah, and 12 times more than the set from Britain. The report also said that the long segment on Chromosome 10 indicated that the DNA came from a relatively recent ancestor."

"There could be one individual in the sixth generation — living around the mid-1800s, which is similar to Warren family lore — or possibly a dozen or more ancestors back to the 10th generation, which would be about 250 years ago. Her results are consistent with a single ancestor, however."
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.e5b684b7dab8

(Thank you to Giordano)
 
Last edited:
Dr. Keith said:
Are you talking about the same one twice? Because the the Orig3n test had nothing to do with ancestry, indigenous or otherwise.



As such, the fact that they didn't notice that it was dog DNA is funny, but not surprising. They weren't looking at ancestry markers at all. Also, they were already "under legal scrutiny from the federal government last year for selling tests without the proper lab certifications."
Click to expand...

As the dog was a Chihuahua, then it is correct it is of Mexican descent . <g d r>
 
We seem to be all over the place in this thread. There really is not a lot of similarity between 23andme and the research undertaken by Warren's team. They achieved a high degree of resolution, down to individual base pairs, but there is just no way to determine if someone has a Cherokee ancestor,, did she claim that the tests proved that?
 
Marcus said:
We seem to be all over the place in this thread. There really is not a lot of similarity between 23andme and the research undertaken by Warren's team. They achieved a high degree of resolution, down to individual base pairs, but there is just no way to determine if someone has a Cherokee ancestor,, did she claim that the tests proved that?
Click to expand...

According to Vixen it is quite possible.
And, no. Warren never claimed the DNA tests proved she had Cherokee ancestry, just Native American, which it indicated with a very high degree of probability.
 
theprestige said:
Serious question: Why would the ethnicity of the placement family even matter?
Click to expand...

Native Americans are quite insistent that NA children be placed with Native American families.

Indian Child Welfare Act (1978):

“In any adoptive placement of an Indian child under State law, a preference shall be given, in the absence of good cause to the contrary, to a placement with (1) a member of the child's extended family; (2) other members of the Indian child's tribe; or (3) other Indian families.” ~ 25 U.S. Code § 1915
Click to expand...
 
Meadmaker said:
Well, keep trying.

I don't know exactly how geneticists do their work, so I can't tell you exactly why that database was used by Bustamante, or whether there is any connection to any other source. What I know is that he is the most authoritative source I've heard on this subject, and he says she probably has a Native American ancestor, 8 generations back, plus or minus a couple of generations.

He can't distinguish between a Cherokee and an Inca, but since she lived in Oklahoma, I'm thinking something from the United States is a more likely source. Maybe, I don't know, Cherokee? Really, it could be lots of things, because 8 generations back would be before her ancestors moved to Oklahoma, and maybe even before Andy Jackson kicked the Cherokee out to Oklahoma. (As an aside, is Jackson still getting booted off the 20 dollar bill, or did Trump belay that order?)

Seriously, I haven't heard actual geneticists question the core finding, which is that a Native American ancestor is likely. Note that in the video they released I didn't hear him say the word "prove", so my guess is there's still some room for doubt.

Most importantly, for this line of discussion, is that there is nothing wrong with the science used by Bustamante, or with ancestry DNA testing in general. It's perfectly good science. You just have to be careful with the interpretation. There are limits to what it can tell you.




Well, duh. But that has nothing to do with the DNA science.
Click to expand...


I rather suspect Warren already knew there was a trace of Native American when she started ticking the boxes as an ethnic minority. Perhaps she heard it from a family member.

So, this is where her calculating scheming nature comes in. She gamed the system for all it was worth, knowing that she could always come up with the trump card <ahem> of hey, I'm entitled to, it's in my DNA, so you can't touch me, guv.

This is the type of person who sits on the pavement claiming to be homeless...and then toddles off home when no-one's looking.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom